ITV

Tag: Fastway Transmission

  • TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Private Ltd which broadcasts News Express has been directed by the TelecomDisputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs 35,88,009 along with interest @8 percent till the date of final payment of the amount to multi-system operator Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd.

    The case of the petitioner is that it entered into a channel placement agreement for placement of News Express on 27 September 2013 for the period 15 July 2013 to 14 July 2013. Sai Prasad Media was required to pay an amount of Rs 1,07,20,000 excluding taxes in four instalments on receipt of invoices. Fastway claimed it fulfilled all obligations on its part under the agreement.

    However, Sai Prasad Media failed to make payments to the petitioner for  placement/carriage charges. It has also been stated that invoices towards payment of placement charges/carriage fee in accordance with the agreement were raised but only part payments were made in violation of terms of the agreement. It has been further submitted that partial payment/non-payment of invoiced amounts resulted in an outstanding dues of Rs 35,88,008. 

    Reminders to the broadcaster went unheeded, and it also failed to appear before the Tribunal to defend its case.  

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava In the directive on 25 May 2016 also directed for examination of the witness of the petitioner by an advocate commissioner, before examining all the documents and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had fulfilled all its obligations.

  • TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    TDSAT asks Sai Prasad Media to clear dues of MSO with interest

    NEW DELHI: Sai Prasad Media Private Ltd which broadcasts News Express has been directed by the TelecomDisputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs 35,88,009 along with interest @8 percent till the date of final payment of the amount to multi-system operator Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd.

    The case of the petitioner is that it entered into a channel placement agreement for placement of News Express on 27 September 2013 for the period 15 July 2013 to 14 July 2013. Sai Prasad Media was required to pay an amount of Rs 1,07,20,000 excluding taxes in four instalments on receipt of invoices. Fastway claimed it fulfilled all obligations on its part under the agreement.

    However, Sai Prasad Media failed to make payments to the petitioner for  placement/carriage charges. It has also been stated that invoices towards payment of placement charges/carriage fee in accordance with the agreement were raised but only part payments were made in violation of terms of the agreement. It has been further submitted that partial payment/non-payment of invoiced amounts resulted in an outstanding dues of Rs 35,88,008. 

    Reminders to the broadcaster went unheeded, and it also failed to appear before the Tribunal to defend its case.  

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava In the directive on 25 May 2016 also directed for examination of the witness of the petitioner by an advocate commissioner, before examining all the documents and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had fulfilled all its obligations.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT directs Taj TV to give signals to Fastway Transmission in Karnal

    TDSAT directs Taj TV to give signals to Fastway Transmission in Karnal

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Taj Television – the distribution arm of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) – to provide its signals to multi-system operator (MSO) Fastway Transmission in Karnal in Haryana as an interim measure.

     

    The Tribunal has said that the final order will be passed post the resolution of a pending dispute where another New Delhi based MSO – Indiverse Broadband has claimed that both Siti Cable and Fastway are indulging in piracy and taking away its subscribers.

     

    It said the interim order was being given “having regard to the fact that due to non-supply of the signals, Fastway may be losing the market on a daily basis.”

     

    Even as it appointed Mansoor Ali Shoket as the advocate-commissioner to record the submissions of all the parties, the Tribunal said that Fastway will pay a monthly sum of Rs 17 lakh to the Tribunal and the first month’s fee will have to be deposited in the Tribunal by 3 February.  

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said, “The supply of signals by virtue of this direction shall not create any equity in favour of Fastway. It is further directed that while enlisting any LCOs or subscribers, Fastway should bear in mind that in case its petitions are finally dismissed, the supply of signals by Taj Television may come to a sudden end without any notice. It is further made clear that as a result of disconnection of the supply of signals, Fastway alone will be responsible for any monetary claims raised by any LCO or subscriber or any civil or criminal liability.”

     

    The order further said, “Even while the Tribunal proceeds to consider the rival cases of the parties on their merits, it is made clear that the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal shall not, in any manner, come in the way of any other authority or court having jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.”

     

    The Tribunal said the cases will be listed on 2 February for framing of issues. On that day, the counsel for all the parties shall jointly submit an agreed list of issues. In case there are issues on which there is no agreement between the parties, the decision will be taken by the Tribunal. All the three sides shall file their respective evidence affidavits by 10 February.

     

    Fastway shall then produce its witnesses for cross-examination before Shoket – appointed by mutual consent – on 12 February. After cross-examination of Fastway’s witnesses, cross-examination of the Indiverse witnesses will take place following which the cross-examination of Taj Television witnesses will take place. The Advocate-Commissioner and all sides shall ensure that cross-examination of all the witnesses is over by 5 March.

     

    Shoket will be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs 7,500 per day. The payment for the days on which the cross-examination of any party takes place, will be made by that party. The three cases will be listed for hearing on 19 March.

     

    The Tribunal noted that in these cases, “We are faced with the issue of piracy of TV channels, that is to say, in case it is established that an MSO is engaged in unauthorised transmission of channels on a large scale and in an organised manner over a long period of time, what would be its liability and what would be the remedies available to the broadcaster whose channels are re-transmitted without legal sanction.” 

     

    Even though clause 3.2 of the Interconnect Regulations 2004 expressly mentions “default in payment” as the ground for denial of signals, “the question that needs to be examined is whether an MSO indulging in organized large scale piracy over a long period of time would still be entitled to claim the supply of signals as of rights in terms of the Regulations. The ancillary question is what remedies are available to the broadcaster and the other MSOs suffering losses on account of the piracy,” the Tribunal noted.

     

    Fastway Transmissions had come to the Tribunal seeking a direction to Taj Television, to give its channels for re-transmission in Karnal. Earlier, Indiverse had filed its petition seeking a direction to Taj Television to agree to a substantial reduction in its subscriber base on the plea that the unauthorised entry of Fastway and another MSO, Siti Cable in Karnal, has greatly eroded its subscriber base.

     

    Taj Television resisted the demands of its channels by Fastway primarily on the allegation that the latter is engaged in rampant piracy of its signals in the area of Karnal. Indiverse also makes the same allegation and states that even though it held dominant position as an MSO in Karnal, as a result of unauthorised entry of Fastway and Siti Cable, another MSO there, and the rampant piracy by them, it is reduced to a state where 90 – 95 per cent of its network is taken over by the two MSOs.